Property owner asks county to restore irrigation control box after tile replacement

A property owner asked the County Drainage Board on July 21 to allow him to reinstall an irrigation control box that was removed when a contractor replaced a tile on a ditch running near 175 Road. The owner said the box helped him hold water for sub-irrigation that benefits neighbors’ yards, gardens and two shallow wells.

The request matters because the owner said the removed structure has caused higher water levels and that reinstallation would allow him to manage flows and reduce stress on nearby wells. He described decades of tile installations and repairs and said the box previously raised water levels by about 18 inches when in use.

The owner recounted that he had installed a new tile there about 27 years ago, that earlier clay tiles had broken down, and that his neighbors and local groups had at times maintained or farmed the fields near the ditch. He said he placed a plug last year that raised water and later removed it with a neighbor. “I would rather myself, so I could control it better, have my box back something similar that I could handle easier,” the property owner said.

County staff discussed options and next steps. Jenny (staff member) said the county does not currently have authority to clean or restore ditches that are not county-maintained and that she does not have authority to enter and do that work unilaterally. She agreed to look into the cost and availability of a commercial Fratco box and whether the county could assist if the device would benefit multiple properties. “I do not have the authority to go in and clean that ditch,” Jenny said.

Heidi and other staff offered to help determine costs; the board expressed no opposition to investigating a replacement box but did not vote on any formal action that day. Board members said they saw no objection to the property owner pursuing the work if he could fund it but requested staff return with cost estimates and clarification about county authority and whether installation would require permits or a petition.

No motion to authorize county expense or to direct county crews was made or approved; the board instead directed staff to report back with the Fratco box cost and whether the county could participate if the box would serve multiple properties. The owner said he could pay if necessary but preferred county cooperation.

The board did not set a timeline for staff follow-up; the matter will be revisited once staff report on pricing and permitting requirements.